We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, February 9. 2017

From the standpoint of the State, if you are not producing tax dollars on their tax farm then you are a liability and a burden. In my view, government involvement with, and control over, important personal things like education and medical care is a dangerous road.

"And last week researchers from the University of Calgary calculated that when euthanasia reaches the level of Belgium and the Netherlands, the country’s health system could save up to up to C$139 million every year..."

To those researchers I say, "Set a good example for other Canadians like me: you go first to show us how it's done."

that's a good question. which american politician has said, "You are no longer useful to the state, you must be eliminated."

in what tax code does the legislative intent or purpose state anything like, "From the standpoint of the State, if you are not producing tax dollars on their tax farm then you are a liability and a burden."

and I mean, "said", I don't mean someone else's projections.

the worst thing we true conservatives do is to set up and knock down strawmen. if you don't understand what the abortionists and what these murderers are promoting, you will never defeat them.

To tell the truth, I don't know of an American politician who uttered those exact words. My thought when writing that was of the communist in Russia, China, perhaps Cuba. And of course Hitler. They may not have said those exact words, but that was their motive: eliminate those that the state deems worthless, or undesirable.

Margaret Sanger was partially motivated with abortion, to eliminate the undesirable people of color. Abortion is used to eliminate the undesirable children. It debases our humanity. And that is a real problem. We are better than animals.

I believe its time for widespread use is coming, perhaps in 15 years as large numbers of baby boomers begin overwhelming the elderly care system.

It won't be just for the terminally ill.

I would speculate that at first it will used on the penniless and friendless who have lost their minds. Put 'em to sleep and write it up as a heart attack.

Then it will be the same demographic who may still have their wits but require 24 hour care.

Once these hurdles have been cleared heirs may have their dependent/incompetent parents put down so their inheritance might be preserved.

Who knows where it may go from there?

As for euthanizing the terminally ill, if Government wasn't so greedy they could incentivize it. Suppose it was going to cost $500, 000 to care for a terminally patient to the end. If a patient signed off on euthanasia, give half of the projected expenses to the heirs. The State keeps the other half. Not everyone would do it but many might.

It's all very ominous. As JR Ewing said, "Once you get past the ethics, the rest is easy."

Once you decide to put humans down like animals where does it end?

OTOH, as a nation, how much can we spend on medical care before the breaking point is reached and what then?

This is the problem with any socialized healthcare scheme. We see it here in the VA. We have seen it in Canada, England and even in France. It is the inevitable result of putting a bureaucracy in charge of health care and giving them the final say on how the money will be spent. Does it really surprise anyone?

There is euthanasia and then there is the more insidious death panels who simply decide that because of your age, health or personal habits healthcare funds will not be spent on you. A family member who was a Canadian citizen was told that without a quadruple bypass he had two years to live. But that the Canadian healthcare system would not spend tens of thousands of dollars on an 82 year old man. He made a decision to not spend his children's inheritance to drive over the border to Chicago and get the bypass within a week of being seen. Instead his pride and stubbornness won out and within two years he passed. Was he right to do this? I don't know it was his decision to make. Was the government right to refuse him treatment??

If they will spread the savings among my grandchildren tax-free, they can have me now. But, I want an ironclad guarantee underwritten by a consortium of banks and insurance companies. Don't trust the government to keep it's word.

Legalised euthenasia can be a godsend for the terminally ill BUT only if there are protections in place.

In the Netherlands (and I assume Belgium but I don't know their laws) it is only ever authorised if the patient requests it (not his doctors, not the government, not the family or the insurance company) AND a psychologist deems him to be mentally capable of making and comprehending the decision AND his physicians (and a panel of others) conclude that there is indeed "endless and unbearable suffering" (that's the literal definition as stated in the law).

That's not to say some hospitals try to trick or bully patients into euthenasia if there's no further glory to be had for them in keeping the patient, but that's the law.

My family has had to deal with both extremes.
When my mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer the hospital planned for her an appointment with a "terminal care specialist" who turned out (my dad became suspicious, not knowing the person and the appointment having been scheduled without asking or telling anyone in advance what it was about) to be a euthenasia advocate and specialist.
We canceled the appointment, after which the hospital effectively kicked my mother out, claiming "there's nothing more we can do for you" (which was technically true, but there was nowhere else for her to go either).

When my dad had a stroke and wanted to die otoh the specialists in the same hospital refused to perform the procedure claiming there was still a small but non-zero chance he'd make a full recovery (admitting to me and my sister that that chance was infinetisimally small, but their ethics did not allow them to help kill a patient).

The Netherlands may have those protections on paper, but a fair few people are euthanized there WITHOUT their consent. A recent case involved a woman with dementia who did not want to be killed. The doctor first tried to sedate the woman by putting something in her coffee and then, when the sedative was not sufficient, had family members hold the woman down while the lethal injection was made. No consent there.

So here's something screwy I noticed yesterday: The same primary drug used by the Europeans for euthanasia is the same drug outlawed by the Europeans for use for torture and death row executions: sodium thiopental, a.k.a. sodium pentothal. Truth serum drug.
Cannot (legally) be used for torture, cannot be sold by European manufacturers for torture or executions, no longer manufactured in the US. But OK for euthanasia over there. Go figure
If it weren't for double-standards, they'd have no standards

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: